4 ms·

Neither the contents of your comment, nor that of the document on Wikipedia appear to substantiate the claims you have made. Please cite any relevant documents,

by billme 6y ago

Neither the contents of your comment, nor that of the document on Wikipedia appear to substantiate the claims you have made. Please cite any relevant documents, laws, etc - that support your claims as directly as possible; for example, document link, page number, subheading, paragraph, etc. As is, your comment to me is worth less than having said nothing at all — as it requires time to read your comment, link, and the responses critical of it.

voxic11 6y ago
The issue is that the white house council can declare anything they want to be legal, and unless the supreme court has ruled on that issue specifically everyone involved has immunity from prosecution until the supreme court does rule on it. See how the council's torture memos played out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
- billme 6y ago
  Supreme Court has ruled on the executive branches limited legal authority, even during war time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co... That being, “The President did not have the inherent authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress.” My rewording, “The President [does] not have the inherent authority to [do anything] in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on [them] by Congress.”
  - voxic11 6y ago
    I don't disagree that legally the authority of the president is limited. But in practice the president can order and see executed the torture of innocent people for years without any possibilty of justice for those victimized. This is because legally the president and anyone acting under his command are immune from prosecution if they acted according to legal guidance from the white house council and the supreme court hasn't specifically ruled that exact behavior illegal. I guess my question for you if there is a difference between something being legal and something being illegal but those doing it are immune from prosecution.
    - billme 6y ago
      >> “legally the president and anyone acting under his command are immune from prosecution if they acted according to legal guidance from the white house council“ Source? As far as I am able to tell, this is false; as in it is not that they are immune from prosecution, but that prosecution has never occurred. Clearly, if war crimes were ever brought, regardless of the laws, commands, etc - it would have not resulted in being immune from prosecution.
      - voxic11 6y ago
        > Under recent Supreme Court law, however, we are compelled to conclude that, regardless of the legality of Padilla's detention and the wisdom of Yoo's judgments, at the time he acted the law was not "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he [wa]s doing violate[d]" the plaintiffs' rights. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2083, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore hold that Yoo must be granted qualified immunity, and accordingly reverse the decision of the district court. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120502152.xml https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120502152.xml
        billme 6y ago
        As it relates to torture, war crimes apply regardless of if a party believed they were acting legally. As for the case you cited, it was a civil suit, therefore ruling only covers civil law, not criminal. That said, does not protect "the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". [1] All Presidents are fully aware by law their powers are limited, no reasonable official would claim otherwise. No reasonable person or official would claim their actions were legal, hence why they knowingly hid them from FISA & Congress. [1] Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        That deals with immunity to civil liability, not immunity to criminal prosecution. There's no necessary relationship between them.

by billme 6y ago

voxic11 6y ago

The issue is that the white house council can declare anything they want to be legal, and unless the supreme court has ruled on that issue specifically everyone involved has immunity from prosecution until the supreme court does rule on it. See how the council's torture memos played out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

billme 6y ago
Supreme Court has ruled on the executive branches limited legal authority, even during war time: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co... That being, “The President did not have the inherent authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress.” My rewording, “The President [does] not have the inherent authority to [do anything] in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on [them] by Congress.”
- voxic11 6y ago
  I don't disagree that legally the authority of the president is limited. But in practice the president can order and see executed the torture of innocent people for years without any possibilty of justice for those victimized. This is because legally the president and anyone acting under his command are immune from prosecution if they acted according to legal guidance from the white house council and the supreme court hasn't specifically ruled that exact behavior illegal. I guess my question for you if there is a difference between something being legal and something being illegal but those doing it are immune from prosecution.
  - billme 6y ago
    >> “legally the president and anyone acting under his command are immune from prosecution if they acted according to legal guidance from the white house council“ Source? As far as I am able to tell, this is false; as in it is not that they are immune from prosecution, but that prosecution has never occurred. Clearly, if war crimes were ever brought, regardless of the laws, commands, etc - it would have not resulted in being immune from prosecution.
    - voxic11 6y ago
      > Under recent Supreme Court law, however, we are compelled to conclude that, regardless of the legality of Padilla's detention and the wisdom of Yoo's judgments, at the time he acted the law was not "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he [wa]s doing violate[d]" the plaintiffs' rights. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2083, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore hold that Yoo must be granted qualified immunity, and accordingly reverse the decision of the district court. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120502152.xml https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120502152.xml
      - billme 6y ago
        As it relates to torture, war crimes apply regardless of if a party believed they were acting legally. As for the case you cited, it was a civil suit, therefore ruling only covers civil law, not criminal. That said, does not protect "the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". [1] All Presidents are fully aware by law their powers are limited, no reasonable official would claim otherwise. No reasonable person or official would claim their actions were legal, hence why they knowingly hid them from FISA & Congress. [1] Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        That deals with immunity to civil liability, not immunity to criminal prosecution. There's no necessary relationship between them.